Which One Wears It Better? 1989 Chrysler LeBaron vs 1994 Buick Century Estate

Hey, did you hear about the boat carrying red paint that crashed into a boat carrying blue paint? No one was injured, but both crews were marooned! (You groan now, but you’ll be retelling it later today.) Maroon or burgundy used to be a staple of car color options, but you hardly see it anymore. And you never see it paired with a matching interior. Today, I thought I’d show you a couple of oldies with just such a color scheme.

Yesterday we looked at ’90s SUVs from opposite ends of the market. It wasn’t immediately obvious which one was going to win from the comments; the Suzuki X-90 seems to be a love-it-or-hate-it car, and both viewpoints were well-represented. The Ford Explorer, probably because it was once so common, doesn’t seem to inspire as many strong feelings either way. I guess the X-90 was just too weird for too many of you; the Explorer took a pretty easy win in the end.

I love the little Suzuki SUVs, but I never have warmed to the X-90. It’s a Sidekick, but with worse looks and less practicality. Besides, my wife had an Explorer for years that we both really liked – except for the trouble-prone automatic transmission. I think I could get behind the idea of another Explorer, but with a stick.

It’s funny: as much as I dislike bright red as a car color, I can really appreciate a nice burgundy or maroon. It especially looks good on cars with a little bit of chrome trim to set it off – not a lot, just a little. Pair it with a red interior to complete the look, and you have a handsome machine. Neither of these cars is exactly a styling icon, but they do the dark red thing pretty well. Let’s check them out.

1989 Chrysler LeBaron convertible – $2,400

Engine/drivetrain: 2.5-liter OHC inline 4, three-speed automatic, FWD

Location: Rolling Meadows, IL

Odometer reading: 150,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

You know this car. You know the Seinfeld reference, the Cake song, and the fact that Veronica Mars drove one. You probably also know that it revived the American-made convertible after six years of nothing but hardtops. But do you know where the name comes from? It goes back further than you think. LeBaron was a coachbuilding firm way back in the 1920s, making bodies for not only Chrysler, but also Lincoln, Duesenberg, Cadillac, Packard, and other high-end cars. LeBaron was purchased by a company called Briggs Manufacturing, which was later purchased by Chrysler in the ’50s, and the LeBaron name found its way onto Chrysler’s top-of-the-line Imperial cars. After Imperial went away, Chrysler threw away the LeBaron name on a gussied-up Dodge Aspen, and then gave it to the K-car you’re all familiar with. This final form of the LeBaron may be the butt of a lot of jokes, but it comes by its pedigree honestly.

The K-based LeBaron began and ended its run with Mitsubishi engines, starting with the miserable carbureted 2.6-liter four and ending with the 3.0-liter V6 found in countless minivans. In between, it was offered with both naturally aspirated and turbocharged versions of the Chrysler 2.2/2.5 four. This one has a naturally aspirated 2.5-liter engine that only offers a few more horsepower than the old Mitsubishi motor, but at least it’s fuel-injected. The transmission is, of course, a three-speed Torqueflite automatic. You could actually get the LeBaron, even the convertible, with a manual, but they’re almostunheard off. This one had its engine and transmission replaced ten years ago, according to the seller, but they don’t say why. It runs and drives just fine now, though it has not been driven regularly for a couple years, so it probably has some cobwebs to blow out.

It’s in beautiful condition inside. There are hardly any signs of wear at all, just some discoloration on the floor mats. The seller says the air conditioning works, important for those days when it’s too hot and sunny to put the top down (yes, it happens). The rear quarter windows are supposed to roll down, but they’re stuck in the “up” position. I believe that’s a common problem with these cars; I think I remember our buddy Stephen Gossin running into that issue on one of his LeBarons.

It’s really clean outside, too. The paint looks great, and while you should still take a peek underneath to be sure, there are no obvious signs of rust. There is one hole in the top that has been patched, and the headlight doors are stuck open, but on a cheap convertible like this, those are minor concerns. It could use new tires, though; it sounds like they’re aging out.

1994 Buick Century Estate – $3,500

Engine/drivetrain:3.1-literr OHV V6, four-speed automatic, FWD

Location: Phoenix, OR

Odometer reading: 161,000 miles

Operational status: Runs and drives well

Buick’s Century nameplate goes back almost as far as the LeBaron. It was first used in 1936, on a new model with the “big” engine, capable of cruising at 100 miles an hour. I personally can’t imagine going that fast in a car that primitive, but apparently some people did. The Century name went away at the start of World War II, but it came back in the 1950s, then went away again, and returned in the 1970s. This FWD A-body design is probably the best-known Century model today, owing to a fourteen-year run in Buick showrooms and a cockroach-like ability to survive almost anything. It will probably even still break 100, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

After years with Buick’s own V6 engine under the hood, the final couple of years of Century production switched to GM’s corporate3.1-liter V6. It’s a good, durable engine that nobody really loves, but everybody tolerates, and I’m sure it serves this wagon well. The only issues the seller notes involve warning lights: the low-fuel light doesn’t work, and the brake warning light is stuck on, which is almost certainly a problem with the switch on the parking brake pedal, and not an actual issue with the brakes. But pop the cap on the master cylinder and look inside, just to make sure.

The interior of this one is a little rougher than the Chrysler, and it desperately needs vacuuming, which the seller acknowledges. As it is, it’s hard to tell what’s damage to the upholstery and what’s just crud, but the back seat definitely has some damage. It actually looks like a dog has been chewing on it. I can’t comment on the condition of the third seat, because it’s folded down in the photos, but I bet it has never even been used.

The outside is in good shape, I think, but the seller only took photos of the driver’s side. I would hope that the other side looks just as good, but don’t quote me on it. As an Oregon car, it shouldn’t have any rust, but it doesn’t matter much anyway; these old A-bodies seem to be able to get really impressively rusty before anything structural happens to them.

So there they are, two somewhat lackluster cars with storied names, in roughly the same color. But hey, at least they’re reasonably priced, and not trying to cash in on the whole ’80s/90s nostalgia thing. And they’re both probably still fairly reliable cars, with cheap and easy-to-get parts, so they’re unlikely to leave you marooned. (Sorry.) Which one is more your style?